McCain suspending his campaign

[Sqrl]

steven787 said:

Sqrl said:

steven787 said:

First, it is about whether they should be there. Leadership is setting an example and taking the lead (hence the name).  Phoning it in doesn't cut it.  Sorry it simply doesn't.

Second, the reason they should be there has nothing to do with the office they are running for but the office they currently occupy.  While it is typically seen as not being a particularly big deal when someone misses out on routine duties because of the campaign trail that doesn't mean the biggest crisis in 50-80 years (depending on your view) should be treated anywhere near the same way.  This is their job and if they have confidence in their ability to lead they should feel comfortable being part of that process (and Obama agrees with me on that).

Third, the suspension of the campaign was intended to create an air of urgency.  The whole point he was making is that this is important enough to drop everything and get it done, again even Bill Clinton agrees McCain's suspension is born of good intentions and not partisanship..seriously the man spoke at the DNC...I think that should tell us something about how silly the argument is.  The politicization of this is coming from everyone but McCain & Obama from what I've seen..but mostly the media.  McCain has been busy all day in meetings and on the phone with very few exceptions and even Obama in the interview you linked says that if McCain thinks he can help he should be there.

I have to thoroughly disagree with you on whether it was the right call. The distinct impression I've had for about 2 days now is that they were going to ram this bill down our throats and screw us.  I got a little substantiation to that, but I have yet to check into. Lindsey Grahm told Greta tonight that ACORN was being funneled cash through this bill and indicated that there were other problems as well.   

(Fourth) Now I have to say you ignored the point about Reid and Paulson both requesting McCain's input/presence.  Don't you find it the least bit sleazy that Reid asks for him by name then denounces him when he shows up?  I simply am amazed by the ability of these politicians to ignore their own previous statements and say whatever works at that moment.  The whining about McCain is, at least for now, nothing more than partisan blathering.  Paying attention to it only serves to distract from the real issue, the issue that we should be focused on rather than worrying about whether McCain and Obama are going to have a debate that likely won't matter much if this deal doesn't get done.

(fifth)As for the bill McCain supposedly ruined...again read what I said and address it.  It's a defunked argument.  There was no bill, they had 5 senators who agreed on terms and the house was never on board. As I said the bill must originate in the house as a matter of constituinal law so the senators were overstepping their bounds and stretching the truth more than just a little bit when they claimed to have any sort of deal.

 

(1) Both of them were physically there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/postphotos/orb/asection/2008-09-26/index.html?imgId=PH2008092504042&imgUrl=/photo/2008/09/25/PH2008092504042.html',650,850))">

From left, Sen. John McCain, House Minority Leader John Boehner, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Bush and Sen. Barack Obama at the White House. (By Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- Associated Press)

(2) So every senator and house member should be there, or just every senator? This is not logical, the only ones who should be there are the ones who are on the banking and finance committee or the ones specifically chosen to go.  Why? Because most Senators have no idea about economics (just like Obama and McCain).  This is why we have committees, so that they can act fast.

The president invited both of them on Wednesday (when he changed his mind), specifically because of my reason above.  This is why both of them went. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioHc80xKMiATnqCpK0cDKJzk_nPQD93DDS000

(3) at the bolded part, Should a president be creating an air pf urgency when everyone is already panicking? You cite a heavily edited Fox News cut.  Here is the whole comment:

Not a very concrete endorsement.  Just Clinton stuttering, on a side note, I think that's the first time that Fox news had a chose to edit a clip to make Clinton look like a more eloquent speaker.

Then you take the intention of Obama's statement out of context.  They were both there, and Obama then went on to say that it's not difficult to get on a plane to Mississippi and back for a 90 minute debate.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIje2PvDf6nuz1VVa28q_DBkx4gAD93EAIQO0

(4) I ignored the comment about Reid requesting McCain to be there because I never heard anything about that before, and only found sources to the contrary.  I want to be as respectful as possible, so I didn't want to nitpick little mistakes. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2448007320080925

The only comment that even comes close to sounding like that is this one

"We need leadership, not a campaign photo op. If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now," Reid said.

I am pretty sure that he meant the literal debate and not the one going on in Washington because the context of the article stated: "...even though Senate leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has said it would not be helpful for McCain to come back."

(5) As for the bill McCain supposedly ruined, it doesn't matter if a single house republican doesn't vote for it if the President is supporting it and planning to sign it. Most are still behind it.

As for the semantics, it's a bill, as soon as a legislative idea is being considered by a congressional commitee it's called a bill.  They are working on a bill.  Just like authors work on novels.   Painters work on paintings.  Just because it's not finished, maybe not even number yet doesn't mean it's not a bill. Often they are called drafts, but they are drafts of bills.

 

In case anyone wants to read the full text of Paulsons request, you can find it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html

 

The thing is, the last poll on the bail out was before WaMu; I think that his killing the bill, by leading some of the more squeamish republicans to basically walk out, will be a disaster IF things get worse before something gets passed.

 

1) I never implied or stated they weren't both there.  But one of them was there because he was requested by the president and one of them wasn't.  One of those is leadership one is not..I'm sure folks can figure it out.

2) Who said every senator needed to be in the meeting?  Remember we are talking about leadership...and yes senators who also happen to be the party leader should be there..really a simple concept.  As for the Bush invitation, McCain was announced that he was going, if anything the Bush invitation was a ploy to force Obama to go and do his job.  Now all of the senators and representatives should be in Washington working within their caucuses at a bare minimum, but in the meetings we need our leaders and these guys are THE leaders of their party.

3) Actually no I watched the very video you linked to, but thanks for assuming. The part I was referring to was not ambigous however.  The part I cited from clinton was his statement about McCain not doing it simply as a political ploy or to avoid the debate, which he did say.  And yes an air of urgency is clearly needed.  If they are trying to add crap about ACORN into the process they clearly don't get how urgent it is.

As for taking Obama's comment out of context...you're joking?  I damn near quoted him.  He said if he thinks he has something to add to the process he should be there. McCain clearly does, so he is.  What exactly is out of context about that?  The only context missing is that Obama was hemming and hawing around the comment because he doesn't personally want McCain there but he still knows that is the reasonable position...which is why I find it frankly startling that people are arguing the point...I have literally no doubt whatsoever that they should both be there working on this, if there are two people in the country who can get this deal done its them.  The debate is back on now anyways so I'm not even sure what the objection is anymore.

4) Ask and yee shall recieve: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Reids_mixed_messaging.html

"We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands on what we should do.”

5)  Ok if we want to play symantics we can call it a bill but there was still never a deal any more than Paulson had a deal or you or I have a deal.  Everything I've seen says there was a small number of people who were onboard and hadn't sold really anyone else.  It had an uphill battle to win support with or without McCain.  Frankly, until we get someone saying "Man I would have voted for that if McCain hadn't showed up" this is all just baseless political wrangling.

As for him leading republicans to walk out, I hadn't seen anything to indicate he lead that effort.  Source?  I hope he did though, from what I've seen and heard I think we can do a whole lot better than what we've seen so far and we have at least until sunday night to get it right, so I'm in no rush to see a deal get done just yet.

 

PS - Just so we are on the same page you do know the dems could have passed the paulson plan but chose not to because the republicans weren't on board right?  They are trying to get this done bipartisanly..mostly so they don't shoulder all of any potential blame....but also for show to help confidence (which is a real concern).